Proceedings of IPC`06

6th International Pipeline Conference

September 25-29, 2006, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2006-10288

PIPELINE OPERATION IN THE NORTH SEA AREA, STATOIL’S EXPERIENCE AND CHALLENGES

Ove R. Samdal Anders Kvinnesland

Statoil ASA Statoil ASA
Haugesund, Norway Haugesund, Norway

Kjell Edvard Apeland Arthur Lind Kjartan Vartdal

Statoil ASA Statoil ASA Statoil ASA
Haugesund, Norway Haugesund, Norway Haugesund, Norway

ABSTRACT several topics related to these technology developments and

Statoil has since 1985 installed, commissioned and operated development of risk based condition (integrity) assessment.
approximately 8000 km of pipelines in the North Sea area. Among
these pipelines are several of the world’s largest offshore gas
trunk lines with the onshore parts relatively short in length but
often with complex landfalls, fjord and land crossings.
Since 2002 Gassco has been the Operator for transporting
Norwegian gas to continental Europe and the UK. Gassco is a
fully state owned company. Statoil is now TSP (Technical Service
Provider) for most of the trunk lines.
Operating these pipelines represents several challenges, and
the accumulated experience gained through successful operations
of these pipelines has brought Statoil to the forefront within the
pipeline industry.
Through comprehensive research and development Statoil has
improved pipeline technology within areas as inspection,
maintenance and repair. Together with the development of risk
based condition (integrity) assessment, inspection and monitoring
planning tools and work processes, these technology
achievements have significantly improved Statoil’s knowledge
and understanding of the pipeline condition and associated risk
levels. A significant reduction in operating cost has also been
experienced.
Together with its collaborating partners Statoil has among
others improved internal inspection technology by improving the
MFL technology to a level of extra high resolution (XHR-
technology) making metal loss measurements more reliable and
accurate. Multi diameter inspection tools (28”-42”) (MDPT) and
optical laser tool (Optopig) have also been developed and put into
operation. Sub sea pipeline survey by use of ROV has been
significantly improved with regard to instrumentation and survey
speed. A unique remote pipeline repair contingency system (PRS)
with well defined response times (10-21 days), has also been
developed. To get the full benefit of these developments a risk
based pipeline condition (integrity) management system
(PCMS/PIMS) has been developed with the development of
DnV’s Orbit Pipeline as a key element. ORBIT Pipeline consists Fig 1: Norway’s transport network.
principally of data storage and administration and various risk
based integrity assessment modules. This paper will discuss

1 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 INTRODUCTION
Statoil’s first operated trunk line is the Statpipe trunk
line system put in operation in 1986. Statpipe comprises 6
subsystems transporting dry, dense phase, natural gas from the
Statfjord field to the gas processing plant at Kårstø and dry sales
gas from Kårstø to Europe via the Draupner platform and the
Norpipe trunk line system. The total length is 893km and the
diameter is 28”-36”with conventional steel riser tie-ins to the
offshore platforms. Offshore pipeline depth down to 300m.
The subsea pipelines enter and leave the island of Karmøy
via a landfall concrete (culvert) tunnel. The onshore pipeline is
routed across the island before it crosses the strait between the
island and the mainland and two more fjords crossing through
blasted rock tunnels underneath the strait and fjords before
approaching the Kårstø gas processing plant.
A more recent typical trunk line is the Åsgard Transport
pipeline, transporting dry, dense phase, natural gas from the
Haltenbanken fields to the gas processing plant at Kårstø with
first gas in 2000. The diameter of the pipeline is 42”, but the water
depth (370m) excluded a conventional 42” steel riser. Production
is therefore achieved using a number of 14” flexible risers
connected to a 28” subsea Export Riser Base (ERB), making
topside pig launching for pipeline inspection impossible. The 28”
ERB is connected to the 42” pipeline via a 28” expansion spool
(70m) with mechanical connectors and a 28” to 42” transition
piece.
The 684 km long 42” subsea pipeline enters the island of
Karmøy via a blasted rock tunnel. The onshore pipeline is routed
across the island before it crosses the strait between the island and
the mainland. Two more fjords are crossed along the onshore
section to the receiving facilities at Kårstø. Fjords and strait are
crossed by laying the pipeline on the bottom. Operating these
pipelines represents several challenges, and the accumulated
experience gained through successful operations of these pipelines
has brought Statoil to the forefront within the pipeline industry.
Through comprehensive research and development Statoil
has improved pipeline technology within several areas as
inspection, maintenance- and repair. Together with the
development of risk based condition (integrity) assessment,
inspection and monitoring planning tools and work processes,
these technology achievements have significantly improved
Statoil’s knowledge and understanding of the pipeline condition
and associated risk levels. In addition a significant reduction in
operating cost has been achieved.
For the time being Statoil is installing the world’s largest
offshore pipeline called Langeled. The pipeline is 42” in diameter
and 1200km long and goes from from an export terminal at the
Norwegian west cost via the Sleipner field to Easington in the
UK.
Since 2002 Gassco has been the Operator for transporting
Norwegian gas to continental Europe and the UK. Gassco is a
fully state owned company. Statoil is now TSP (Technical Service
provider) for most of the trunk lines.
CHALLENGES
Being operator of its first pipeline system 20 yeas ago,
Statoil’s first technical challenge was to establish a proper system
for internal and external inspection together with a reliable subsea
pipeline repair system. After a few years Statoil also realized that
the landfall design also represented a major challenge with respect
to the integrity management of the concrete tunnel.
The more recent design as the Åsgard Transport pipeline, is
first of all challenging the internal inspection technology with
regard to the development of dual diameter inspection tools for
Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
safe subsea launching, pig running and proper data collection for long
distance pigging.
Statoil has actively promoted dual/multi-diameter pipeline
design, amongst others by sponsoring in-line inspection (ILI)
developments in two separate directions;
(1) Development of a Multi-Diameter Pipeline Tool (MDPT),
based on XHR magnetic flux technology
(2) Development of a laser-based 2D/3D image optical tool,
called Optopig.
The development of XHR technology was based upon Statoil
requirements for more cost effective and reliable detection of low
level corrosion in heavy wall, long distance pipelines. On this basis
the XHR technology is challenging the necessity of the so-called
“baseline” inspection, necessary with the HR technology.
Subsea launching of internal inspection tools is also a challenge
with respect to the risk of creating hydrates. By developing very
reliable procedures and operational simulation models, Statoil has in
connection with the inspection of Åsgard Transport demonstrated the
ability of successful sub-sea pig launching at an acceptable risk level.
In addition to the risk of subsea pig launching, pigging
operation also represents a restriction in product flow velocity and
consequently reduced product delivery. Pigging operation should
therefore be limited to what is absolute necessary to maintain an
acceptable integrity risk level.
The combination of MDPT/XHR-technology, Optopig/optical
technology and developing very reliable product monitoring- and
corrosion models, the frequency of internal inspections can be reduced
maintaining an acceptable risk level.
As the size of Statoil’s pipeline network has grown, more and
more focus has been put on scale advantages and cost effectiveness.
This is done by challenging the quality, frequency and cost of internal
and external inspection. In particular the development of cost effective
subsea ROV-operations has been of great importance.
The importance with regard to reliability and availability of the
pipeline network is also challenging the contingency pipeline repair
system (PRS) with regard to response times and reliability in
executing repairs.
To manage the challenge as outlined above a proper risk based
condition management system (PCMS) including risk based inspection
and monitoring planning, has been developed As a part of the PCMS
Statoil has in cooperation with Det norske Veritas (DnV) developed
DnV’s software tool Orbit Pipeline for risk based pipeline condition
(integrity) assessment.
In the chapters below the paper is discussing the following
topics related to the above challenges:
1. Internal inspection
a. Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) - Extra High Resolution
(XHR) technology.
b. Multidiameter Pipeline Tool (MDPT)
c. Optopig–Optical in-line inspection tool
2. External inspection
a. ROV-Survey of submarine pipelines
b. Landfalls
3. Pipeline Repair System (PRS)
a. PRS-pool of equipment
b. Remote pipeline repair system
c. Remote hot-tapping system for subsea pipelines
4. Pipeline Condition Management System (PCMS)
a. Orbit Pipeline
5. Availability and cost effectiveness
2 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 1. INTERNAL INSPECTION
a) Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) - Extra High Resolution (XHR)
technology.
By improving the Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL)
technology to a level of eXtra High Resolution (XHR) compared
to the previous High Resolution (HR) technology, Statoil has
achieved to make metal loss measurements more reliable, accurate
and credible.
Fig.2: MFL (Magnetic Flux Leakage) technology – How it
works.
Statoil initiated development of XHR technology in 1994 together
with Pipetronix/PII. The main development objective was to meet
Statoil’s requirements for more cost effective and reliable
detection of low level corrosion in heavy wall, long distance
pipelines, including;
- Pressure range (> 150 bar)
- Heavy wall thickness inspection capability (up to 1,5”)
- Active range (up to 850 km)
- General metal loss: 5% min. depth estimation with +/-
5% detection accuracy
Comparison between XHR and HR tools:
- Higher data sampling/more sensors (504 vs. 200 sensors
for a 40” configuration)
- Improved magnetization (1000 Hz vs. 600 Hz for a 40”
configuration)
- Advanced data processing/sizing routines
Fig.3: Comparison between XHR and HR tools made mid.
nineties.
Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Internal pitting metal loss:
Diameter < 0.25 T : not defined
Diameter > 0.25 T : 15% min dept. estimation, +/- 8% accuracy
Diameter > 0.5 T : 10% min dept. estimation, +/- 5% accuracy
Diameter > 1 T : 8% min dept. estimation, +/- 5% accuracy
Diameter > 2 T : 5% min dept. estimation, +/- 5% accuracy
External pitting metal loss:
Diameter < 1 T : not defined
Diameter > 1 T : 10% min dept. estimation, +/- 5% accuracy
Diameter > 2 T : 8% min dept. estimation, +/- 5% accuracy
Diameter > 3 T : 5% min dept. estimation, +/- 5% accuracy
By replacing the HR-technology with the XHR-technology
Statoil has been able to more accurately establish the size of metal loss
defects which together with improved product monitoring has made it
possible to increase the interval between inspection-pigging without
increasing the pipeline integrity risk level.
The final choice of technology to be used will have to be made
based upon cost-benefit analysis.
In addition the need for the so-called “baseline” inspection
pigging has been challenged as the XHR-technology is more reliable
with regard to the detection of low level corrosion in heavy wall
pipelines. A “baseline” inspection of a new pipeline for the purpose of
later comparison is no longer deemed necessary.
b) Multi diameter pipeline tools (MDPT)
Conventional in-line inspection tools could not be used in
Åsgard Transport due to the 28”/42”dual-diameters of the pipeline.
Statoil initially evaluated a conventional 42” subsea launching facility
against a 28”/42”diameter concept. A 42” launcher would enable the
use of conventional single diameter pigs, but at a high cost and high
risk related to the development of the Export Riser Base (ERB)
structure and development and operation of the belonging subsea pig-
launching equipment. The ERB connects the flexible risers from the
floating production unit to the pipeline system.
This dual/multi-diameter pipeline technology development was
therefore initiated by the need to obtain reduced capital costs, by
allowing reduced size on offshore risers and near platform lines (save
weight & money) and reduced size main valves (better reliability and
save weight & money).
It was consequently decided to develop a 28”/42” multi
diameter in-line pipeline inspection tool based upon the MFL-XHR
technology together with necessary launching tools and operational
procedures. The 28”/42” MDPT development project started in 1997
with the following main design premises (Åsgard transport gas export
system):
- Pipeline length 707 km
- 200 bar operating pressure
- Wall thickness 42”- 31 mm
- Wall thickness 28”- 25 mm
- 5 D bend
A special in-line inspection tool (MDPT) capable of traversing
the 28”/42”dual diameters of Åsgard Transport has hence been
developed on behalf of Statoil by PII for the Åsgard Transport
partners. Development and testing of this tool were completed in
2004, same year as the tool was used in the Åsgard Transport. This
development involved the largest known change in diameter that an
inspection pig has undertaken whilst providing its function.
3 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 Tow section Magnetizer
Data section
Battery section
Fig 4: The 28”/42” Multi Diameter Pipeline Tool (MDPT) in
42” mode.
The MDPT concept’s main features are:
- Four units comprising tow section, magnetizer section, battery
section, electronic section (data collection/storage)
- True multi-diameter 28”- 42” covering in-line inspection in all
diameters between 28” and 42”
- Total length 7.8 m
- Total weight 4.1 tons
- XHR technology
The tool has been tested several times as follows:
- September 2000 - First Run, Dornum-Emden 42”/~50km
- September 2002 – Inspection of Zeepipe IIB 42”/ ~300 km
- Winter 2003 - three test runs in Zeepipe IIB
- Summer 2003 - test run in Zeepipe IIA 42”/~300 km
The tool has been in service several times as follows:
- Autumn 2003 – One onshore 36”/42” gas pipeline
inspection (3 x 36” river crossings) (Gasunie)
- Autumn 2005 – Onshore 32”/40” gas pipeline inspections
(Ruhrgas)
- The MDPT was finally accepted by the Åsgard Transport
partners and the Norwegian authorities for use in the
Åsgard transport pipeline in 2004. During the summer of
2004 the MDPT was launched and run through the Åsgard
Transport pipeline successfully facing the following
operational challenges:
‰ Minimize reduction in ÅT production during MDPT
installation and inspection
‰ Installation of 44 tonnes heavy subsea pig launcher requiring
strict weather limitations
‰ Tie–in to a live gas system at 300 meter water depth
‰ Removal of sea water – risk of hydrates
‰ 350 valve operations and 700 procedure steps
‰ High focus on HSE&Q and Risk Management
A success criterion was the development of a software
training model for the ROV-pilots. (Colour coded PI&D’s,
3D models, animations).
Inlet end of the
Åsgard pipeline
28”- 42”
Fig.5: MDPT launching for the Åsgard Transport
pipeline 28” to 42”.
Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
No corrosion was detected during the 2005 inspection. 236
metal loss defects (< 12 % of WT), 24 within 10-12% of WT, was
detected. An amount of: ~ 715 G-byte uncompressed data was stored
in the MDPT during the operation.
MDPT/XHR is presently available in 28/42” configuration only,
but different configurations can be made, dependent on demand.
c) OPTOPIG - Optical in-line inspection tool
Introduction
The development of the Optopig introduces a new range of
optical-electronic in-line inspection tools. The technology
incorporated into the tools includes a laser-based 3D-imaging
technology providing enhanced resolution and detection capabilities
for the inspection of the internal surface of a pipeline. The types of
anomalies detected and sized with precision include geometric flaws
as well as internal corrosion. The data collected provides valuable
information, especially for the integrity assessment of gas pipelines.
The tool design also includes the capability to inspect multi-diameter
pipelines incorporating the MDPT-technology for the carrier unit. The
tool can be applied in a large variety of different types of pipelines,
however initially the major focus regarding its application is gas
pipelines.
Principle of Operation
Statoil initiated the development of the Optopig together
with Norsk Elektro Optikk AS. The Optopig has been designed to
provide an accurate and cost-effective solution for the inspection of
the internal surface of pipelines and consists of a highly compact
optical system built into a suitable mechanical pig frame. As with
other in-line inspection tools the mechanical components must
incorporate a drive unit, house the energy supply and provide room for
the measurement and data storage devises. Use of conventional video
proves to be impractical for other than very short pipe lengths, due to
severe power and data storage limitations. The solution to these
challenges came with the introduction of a novel line scan camera and
laser illumination technology. Figure 6 shows the principle applied. A
continuously moving laser line illuminates the inner pipe wall. The
reflected high intensity light is projected onto camera/optical sensors
which are aligned at angles between 30º and 60º to the wall. By
utilizing a triangulation principle on a two-dimensional sensor, the
system can both measure the position of an anomaly and its intensity,
as can be seen in figure 7. By combining these two measurements, a
three-dimensional image of the pipe surface can be displayed.
Fig.6: Optopig inspection tool, working principle.
4 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 Fig. 7: Triangulation Principle

In order to compensate for any disturbing vibrations during

the ride through the line, the tool and for smaller diameters the
individual tool bodies are supported by spring-loaded wheels. The
tool consists of an inspection (e.g. laser/camera) unit and a carrier
unit. The inspection unit consists of eight lasers and eight cameras
and is mounted on shock absorbers inside the carrier body. Fig. 9: 3D image of 42” gate valve with approximately 10mm
The inspection tool is fully autonomous, carrying onboard misalignement.
battery power and all necessary computer hard- and firmware.
The laser based line scan technology is extremely power- and data A data processing system has also been developed allowing for
friendly making it possible to cover inspection ranges of up to automatic detection and classification of pipe features as detected by
1000 km, traveling at 5m/sec. The general mechanical design of the Optopig sensors. This opens up for a very efficient and fast
the tool makes it suitable for use in. pipelines with varying verification of the pipeline condition after the inspection.
internal diameter.
Technical Specifications
Self-Cleaning System The optical and electronic system of the tool works with a depth
In order to make sure that all the optical lenses and orifices resolution of 1 mm and a minimum defect size (area) of 2 x 2 mm. The
are kept clean, a permanent flow of gas is induced across the optical resolution of the image is thereby better than 1 x 1 mm. The
length of the tool due to the differential pressure across the tool. available mechanical adaptation kits enable the tool to be used for any
Any dirt or debris, due to dust or sediment in the gas transported nominal pipeline diameter from 10" through to 52". The design
is thereby kept from settling on the tool. incorporates the ability of the tools to inspect multi-diameter pipelines.
Inspection speeds of up to 5 m/s in gas and operational pressures
Data Visualization of up to 200 bar can be accommodated. The tools are fairly light
Data recorded during a survey can be displayed weight.
immediately after a run has been completed and are easy to
interpret. What you see is what you have, as can be seen clearly in
figures 8 and 9. This technology provides a very direct and quick
means to assess the state of the internal surface of a line
inspected. The data analysis software includes a variety of
viewing options. Any anomalies are initially viewed by simply
"surfing" through the pipeline. Viewing options include 2D- and
3D-representation as well as wire-frame configurations. The latter
enable a detailed inspection of the pipe and the sizing of any flaws
found.

a) Photography c) Skewed 3D image

Fig.10: 42” Optopig.

b) Optopig Image d) Wireframe presentation

Fig.8: Images from verification test, a) Photograph of a

cavity of d=25mm, b) Optopig (2D) image of the cavity,
c) Skewed 3D image, d) Wire frame presentation.

5 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig.11: 10"/16 " Multi-diameter Optopig.
Available tools
• 1x 10/16” Tool
• 1x 18/24” Tool (comleted in June 2006)
• 1x40/42”Tool
Acceptance Tests
The Optopig has been used for a number of inspection
projects to date including a positive "Factory Acceptance Test"
(FAT) by DNV.
Operating history
- 1998 First trial run in 42 inch 300 km ZE IIA gas pipeline
- 1999 Inspection run in 42 inch 21 km Åsgard land pipeline
- 2000-2002 Several test runs in 42 inch 50 km gas pipeline
- 2003 Verification run at Kårstø, (DnV witnessed
- 2006 Dunbar North Alwyn, 16” Multiphase for Total UK,
To be carried out in 2006
- 16” Tunu gas line for Total Indonesia
- 2x24” gas lines for Mærsk Oil and Gas in Danish sector
Inspection of Non-Standard Pipelines
The design of the device makes it well suited also for the
inspection of non-standard pipelines. These types of lines, which
are not normally suitable for the inspection with free-swimming
tools, are also sometimes referred to as "non-piggable" lines. Due
to its mechanical flexibility the optical-electronic pig introduced
here can provide valuable information for the integrity assessment
of such pipelines. The tool can be applied as a stand-alone
inspection device or in combination with the use of other in-line
inspection tools complementing the information collected during
metal loss and crack detection surveys.
Optopig is presently available in 40/42” and 10/16”
configurations. Different configurations, e.g. 16/24”, 24/36”,
28/42” etc. can be available according to demand.
2. EXTERNAL INSPECTION
a) ROV-survey of submarine pipelines
With several thousand kilometre of sub sea pipelines to be
inspected in the harsh environment of the North Sea, Statoil has
encourage the improvement of sub sea pipeline survey by use of
ROV, in particular with regard to instrumentation, survey speed
Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
and survey depth. By organizing tender documents and contracts for
competition, significant improvement in quality and cost effectiveness
has been achieved. At the moment Statoil has frame-agreements with
several survey contractors which are subject to regularly competition.
Fig. 12: Typical survey vessel and ROV-illustration with
pipe-tracker, multibeam side scan sonar and Doppler
sonar visualized.
By improving the ROV launching/receiving technology the
operational weather window has also increased, reducing the cost of
weather delays. In addition the umbilical system has been improved
for better and greater data transfer between ROV and vessel. In
general the operational reliability of ROV-operations has improved.
Cost effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that Statoil’s
average survey cost, including waiting on weather, is 35-40% below
corresponding cost arrived at by Juran Institute during their 2004
North Sea and Gulf of Mexico pipeline benchmarking study, including
several of Statoil’s pipelines. This is not attributable to the
technological improvements only but also to a great extent to the
benefit of large-scale operations and combined pipeline ROV-
inspection and sea-bed mapping for new projects.
b) Landfalls
The Statpipe landfall is built up from five concrete elements
resting on six concrete foundations. Total length is about 670m. The
longest element is 150m. The original bearing design for the concrete
culvert showed to be too stiff, and cracks developed at the sidewalls of
the element foundations. New design had to be developed consisting
of two slide bearings resting on each other, allowing the elements to
move in the x-y plane. In addition there are bearings on the sidewalls.
These bearings must be replaced on a regular basis because they are
worn out due to the heavy loads from the waves and currents at the
unsheltered Norwegian west coast.
Experience is that all other pipelines with landfalls at the west
coast of Norway either enters through open trench with backfilling or
through tunnels, blasted or drilled.
An important yearly event is therefore the inspection and repair
of the Statpipe culvert to ensure that the integrity of the Statpipe
pipeline is acceptable. Even through summer time this is a challenging
operation with regard to weather windows for safe diving operation.
By carrying out HAZID/HAZOP possible hazards are identified and
proper operational procedures developed. Today Statpipe culvert
operations are carried out in a safe manner both for divers and the
environment ensuring that the integrity of the Statpipe pipeline is
acceptable.
6 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Fig.13: Statpipe landfall concrete tunnel illustration,
inspection and repair work illustration
3. PIPELINE REPAIR SYSTEM (PRS)
a) PRS-pool of equipment
The need for a pipeline repair contingency system with well
defined response times (10-21 days) was documented through
contingency demand analyses when Statoil’s first pipeline system,
Statpipe, was established and confirmed by new analysis as the
pipeline portfolio increased. The pipeline repair system, called
PRS, was initiated in 1985 by Norsk Hydro for the Oseberg
Transportation System and has since then developed into a pool of
different repair equipment managed by Statoil.
The objective of the PRS Pool is to give the members of the
pool access to a pipeline repair system to meet all emergency
preparedness requirements and relevant governmental
requirements. Statoil shall as administrator provide that the PRS is
maintained, stored, developed and operated in a way that make
the equipment and services attractive for various types of tie-ins
in addition to preparedness.
It has been an objective to have the system in regular use
through pipeline tie-in operation to document the operability and
reliability of the PRS. In this context a comprehensive track
record is established consisting of:
- 71remote hyperbaric welded tie-ins
- 4 diverless flange tie-ins ( PRS/Matis)
- 3 mechanical sleeve coupling tie-ins (Morgrip)
- 2 remotely operated pipeline cuts
- 9 remotely operated removals of pipeline coating
The PRS pool contains a wide range of tools and equipment for
Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
serving the needs of ca. 8000 km of subsea pipelines, whose diameters
range from 3.5" to 44".
This is by far the world’s largest and most experienced
emergency pipeline repair tool facility. It has almost 20 years of
experience using the tools and a team of dedicated personnel for
planned and emergency repair operations.
Fig.14: The PRS-system illustration
The PRS pool of equipment is stored at Haugesund, Norway ,
developed and operated by Statoil on behalf of its owners and over 40
pool members. The operational costs are shared by the members and
the equipment is available for 3rd party use.
Diving repair scenarios are today developed for water depths
down to 180msw and diverless repair scenarios for the depth range
(180msw) – 600(1000) msw are close to be finalized.
The PRS pool consists of the following main systems:
• Welding spread
– Habitat with tooling and welding machines
• Coupling spread
– Coupling Installation Frame (CIF)
– Morgrip Repair Couplings
• Pipeline Intervention spread
– H-frames with different sizes and capacities
– Concrete removal and cutting machine (CRM)
– Pipeline Intervention Frame (PIF)
– ROV special tooling system (TSM)
• Control systems and other support systems
• Pipeline Repair Clamps
• Isolation plugs (remotely and umbilical operated)
• Pipeline Retrieval Tools (PRT)
Fig.15: Welding spread - Habitat with tooling and welding
machines for diver-based mechanized welding.
7 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 Fig.16: Coupling spread - Coupling Installation Frame
(CIF).

Fig.19: Coupling development

Fig.17: 42" repair coupling.

Fig.20: Testing of diverless repair coupling.

The remote sleeve installation and welding project is based

upon the principle of having a damaged pipe section cut out and a new
pipe spool installed, using remotely controlled hyperbaric welding.
This system will allow pipelines to be repaired in water depths where
diving is either impossible or should be avoided for reasons of health
and safety. The method is based on cost-effective, novel technology,
which permits lightweight equipment and operations to be used and
conducted in deep water and/or difficult conditions without the need
for sophisticated heavy lift DSV-vessels. The repair is made by
Fig.18: Concrete removal and cutting machine. replacing a damage pipe section with a new pipe spool, which is
welded to the main pipeline via sleeves and fillet welds. See fig. 21.
b) Remote pipeline repair system
Remote hyperbaric welding trials have successfully proven MIG
The development of remote pipeline repair started up in
fillet welding for water depths of up to 2500 metres. The new system
March 2003 on the basis of the Norwegian authorities depth
is designed for a water depth of 2000 metres with pipe diameters
limitation to 180msw for saturation diving. For repair scenarios
ranging from 30" to 42".
deeper than 180m it was decided to support the development of
Morgrip couplings for diverless installation for pipelines up to 30”
and remote operated welded sleeve installation for greater
dimensions.
Today the 42" couplings have been developed, tested and
ready for operation while the remote welding project is in the
final stage of the development. Statoil has through several years
supported the development of couplings as shown on the figure 19
below.

8 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig.21: Remote hyperbaric welding of sleeve
connecting pipeline and spool together.
c) Remote hot-tapping system for subsea pipelines
Subsea hot-tapping is a method for connecting new
pipelines to existing pipelines without depressurising the system.
Hot-tapping is a well-known method, involving the drilling a hole
into a live production pipeline. Subsea applications are extremely
limited with only two examples to date on the Norwegian
continental shelf and seven in the whole North Sea area - all using
divers.
Foreseeing the need for remotely operated (diverless)
approaches, work on the new hot-tap system began in 1999 as part
of a development programme for PRS. This technology makes it
possible to tie-in new pipelines to existing infrastructures, even in
very deep water.
Statoil has developed and qualified a subsea remote hot-
tapping system that provides equipment for carrying out subsea
hot-tapping in water depths down to 2000m of pipeline systems
(8”-42”) containing pre-installed hot-tap T-junctions. Maximum
pipeline pressure during tapping operations is 250 bar and
maximum rotation for pre-installed T-junctions is 30deg. from the
vertical position. Cut hole diameter is limited to 400 mm.
The next phase to develop and qualify a retrofit Tee is
ongoing. This will make it feasible to remotely hot tap on live
pipelines, originally unprepared for such hot tap.
Fig.22: Remote hot-tap module mounted on
Pipeline Intervention Frame (PIF.)
Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
4. PIPELINE CONDITION (INTEGRITY) MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (PCMS/PIMS)
Statoil’s maintenance strategy emphasis that all pipeline systems
shall undergo maintenance in order to maintain the function of
equipment, structures and systems in accordance with regulatory
requirements and internal requirements for safe and efficient
operation.
Pipeline regulations and codes are normally based on a safety-
or risk philosophy. The design requirements are established so as to
fulfil the objectives of the safety philosophy. The set of design criteria
may thus be seen as the practical interpretations of it. A given pipeline,
as established through the design, and installed accordingly, then is a
realisation of a structure which, along its whole length, meets the
applicable safety objectives.
In pipeline operations, inspection and monitoring are ongoing
activities for the purpose of assessing the condition and integrity of the
pipeline as the internal and external environment changes and affect
the pipeline system, i.e. verifying that the pipeline remains in a safe
condition. On this basis maintenance programs including inspection-
and monitoring programs are established.
Scope and frequency of maintenance are established in
accordance with risk analysis principles and shall be condition-based
as far as possible, where condition-based maintenance refers to
maintenance activities which are based on knowledge of condition and
are carried out before the maintenance objects (equipment, structures,
systems) fail. As opposed to corrective maintenance which refers to
activities carried out in order to restore functionality to a maintenance
object which has already failed.
The Pipeline Condition Management System (PCMS/PIMS) is
consequently defined as the management system established to obtain
the knowledge of the condition and to carry out the maintenance and
repair as described.
The main management element is the pipeline condition
assessment based upon design-, inspection- and monitoring data.
These data are all stored in purpose built databases.
The software tool “Orbit Pipeline”, assist in organizing and
analyzing data related to
relevant failure mechanisms based upon risk analysis principles where
the probability of failure together with the consequence of failure
constitute the risk element. The acceptable level of risk defines the
basis for establishing & updating monitoring-, inspection and
maintenance programs.
Statoil has through the last years promoted and been a major
premise provider for the development of DnV’s Orbit Pipeline. In this
way the Orbit Pipeline software tool has been tailor-made for Statoil to
be a key tool in Statoil’s PCMS/PIMS. Developments are still
ongoing.
Statoil’s PCMS/PIMS principles has been developed and
materialized into a system of work processes (e.g. inspection,
monitoring,..), databases and software tools (e.g. Orbit Pipeline,..)
which are linked together.
The objective is to make Statoil’s pipeline condition
management system (PCMS/PIMS) process as reproducible and as
person independent as possible. The main objective is nevertheless to
find the acceptable risk- and safety level with the belonging
minimized maintenance, inspection and monitoring programs. This
should be the optimum way of operating the pipeline systems, right
safety level at the lowest cost.
9 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 a) Orbit pipeline
ORBIT Pipeline consist principally of data storage and
administration and various integrity assessment modules. ORBIT
Pipeline may also include assessments from more specialised or
advanced case by case evaluation performed outside ORBIT
Pipeline. ORBIT Pipeline will, however, be useful in defining the
cases where such detailed evaluations are necessary and for later
implementation and interpretation of the results from the
assessment studies.
Data storage and administration
- Data may and will be taken from many data sources, and in
most cases, duplicate data sources will exist. Hence it is
important to notify where the data are taken from. A
reference system has therefore been implemented.
- Pipeline design, fabrication and installation data together
with results from pipeline monitoring and inspection form
the basis for condition/integrity and risk assessment. These
data is input to the assessment module. The time-
development of monitoring and inspection results can also be
examined
- Results from product and corrosion monitoring can also be
stored in ORBIT Pipeline. The objective has been to design a
general framework for collection, evaluation and
presentation of basis data needed to estimate / evaluate
internal corrosion.
- There is an event and history log for registration of events,
operational changes etc. that is important for the assessment
of the pipeline integrity.
Integrity assessment
Different modules serve as a calculation tool for code
compliance, condition, integrity and defect assessments. The
integrity assessment is currently divided into two main categories.
Defect Assessment: Integrity implications of defects, i.e.,
corrosion defects based on commonly used codes (guidelines).
Evaluation of cracks and dents will be added as part of this
module. The Probability of Failure (PoF) is estimated for a given
defect versus time. Two limit states are considered: burst and
leakage limit states. The PoF, CoF and Risk are estimated for all
defects in a given Kp-range.
Technical Assessment: Integrity implications of inspection
results/loads not classified as defects, e.g., free-spans, pressure
containment loads, etc. Allowable limits from design may be
available; hence, the first check should be against these. If such
limits are not available, conservative calculation models based
upon minimum need for addition input, have been implemented.
Pressure containment
The utilisation of the pipeline due to pressure containment
can be calculated according to the DNV Offshore Standard OS-
F101 and the ASME standards B31.4 and B31.8.
Free span
The screening criterion as outlined in DNV-RP-F105 has
been implemented in ORBIT Pipeline. The screening criteria
proposed apply to fatigue damage caused by Vortex Induced
Vibrations (VIV) and direct wave loading in combination with
current and wave loading. Sensitivity studies can be performed by
varying every relevant input parameter.
The design check gives an overview of all span lengths
(span gaps) compared to allowable span length (allowable span
gap). The allowable span length can either be calculated by the
Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
program or given as an input profile. The free-spans can be ranked
according to risk.
On-bottom stability
The On-Bottom Stability assessment as implemented in ORBIT
Pipeline is based on DNV’s Recommend Practice RP E305 On-Bottom
Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines. DNV RP E305 provides
assessment models at various levels. The simplest model “Simplified
Stability Analysis” has been selected. In addition to the stability
check, soil bearing capacity (sinking of the pipeline into the soil) and
floating of the pipeline, are checked.
Upheaval buckling
Pipelines sometimes buckle upwards or sideways under the
influence of axial compressive forces developed by the operating
temperature and pressure. This form of buckling can severely over-
stress the pipeline. The Upheaval Buckling Assessment as
implemented in ORBIT Pipeline has primarily been based on
Germanischer Lloyd’s “Rules for Classification and Construction”.
This methodology is further based on OTC Paper 6335 “Design of
Submarine Pipelines against Upheaval Buckling”.
Cathodic Protection (Anodes)
The cathodic protection design can be verified against DNV-RP-
B401. Anode depletion measurements are plotted against the expected
usage from design.
Risk assessment
The pipeline can be divided into sections, usually based on type
(riser, pipeline, etc.) or most critical damage cause, say a part of the
pipeline with many long free-spans. The risk assessment is done for
each section separately. The pipeline section is one of the basic
concepts in ORBIT Pipeline. The section risk is the highest risk of the
associated damage causes at a specific time. As an example, the
section risk may be driven by a single corrosion defect or a free span,
which extensions are very short compared to the length of the section.
In order to bring the focus to these high-risk elements, it is possible to
sub-section the pipeline. Components (valves, flanges, crossings, etc.)
may be defined along the pipeline. The risk assessment of components
follows the same principals that apply for a section.
1
Pipeline Sections and Damage Risk Condition Aggregated
system components Causes Assessment evaluation reporting
Re-sectioning Re-assessment
New inspection results
Fig.23: Orbit Pipeline Working Process.
Inspection planning
An “Inspection Planning Module” has been implemented in
ORBIT Pipeline. The input to this module is based on two primary
sources:
10 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 1) Past inspections, i.e., historical overview of all performed
inspections.
2) Results from pipeline and component assessment in terms of
time to next inspection (initiated from exceeding risk-limit or
maximum time between inspections).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Statoil acknowledge the contribution and cooperation of
Pipetronix/PII, Norsk Elektro Optikk AS, Det norske Veritas,
StoltSubsea7 JV, Isotek, Sintef, Cranfield, Hydratight, Technomarine,
Deep Ocean AS, Stolt Offshore AS.

The generated inspection plan can be visualized and edited in

two different views:
- A table and a plot with Kp along the x-axis and years along the
y-axis
- The Planning Sheet is a ‘spreadsheet-like’ visualization section
by section.

Activities
Planned activities (repairs, interventions, analyses, etc.) can
be registered along the pipeline system and followed-up in the
activities module.
Reporting
The reporting module comprises of the following pre-
defined reports: General print-preview, Pipeline data,
Event/History Log, Survey and Inspection Results, Defect
assessment, Portfolio Assessment, Pipeline Assessment,
Component Assessment, Condition Evaluation Summary,
Inspection Plan, Activities, References and Pictures, Report
Merger (merge selection of the above reports into one file),
Access Reports (user-designed database reports).

5. AVAILABILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost figures shown below illustrate the cost distribution
between the main operating cost-disciplines in average for all
Statoil’s gas and liquid transport pipelines. The distinctive
characteristics of each pipeline system imply of course that the
specific cost figures for the specific pipelines deviate from the
average.
We would like to highlight the very low percentual
corrective and condition based maintenance cost implying a very
high percentage of mechanical availability of the pipeline
systems, also confirmed by the operating experience. This we
believe is to be attributable to Statoil’s high focus on risk based
condition assessment, inspection planning and performance as
also indicated by the relatively high percentual cost figures for
these disciplines.

30

25
25
Inspection

Operating agreements
20 18 19
% of total cost

incl.chemicals
Product mngt.
15 13 Condition assesment
13
PRS cont.
10 8
Corrective & Condition
based maintenance
4 Other (Business
5
overhead, support, etc.)

0
1
Activities

Fig.24: Average operating cost distribution (%) per km.

11 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded 26 Oct 2010 to 116.212.199.202. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm